Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Majority Favor State Laws That Would Shut Down Repeat Offenders Who Hire Illegal Immigrants

Rasmussen Reports:
- 61% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a law in their state that would shut down companies that knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants.
- 21% oppose such a law, and another 18% are undecided.

- 82% think businesses should be required to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally.
- 12% disagree and oppose such a requirement.

- 63% of voters also feel that landlords should be required to check and make sure a potential renter is in the country legally before renting them an apartment.
- 28% do not believe landlords should be required to make such checks.

Separate recent polling shows:
- 66% favor strict government sanctions against employees who hire illegal immigrants
- 51% support sanctions against those who rent or sell property to those who are in this country illegally. This is consistent with surveys for years. Tags:Rasmussen Reports, illegal aliens, illegals, e-verify, rentersTo share the post, click on "Post Link." ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Monday, May 30, 2011

San Francisco moving to strengthen'sanctuary city' policy.

This is just a stupid idea and even dumber policy, should it go into effect. But no one should be surprised by such a move from this part of Kalifornia or FaliKornia, take your pick. While this sheriff moves to aid and grant sanctuary to illegal aliens, I am sure his equal in Los Angeles county will follow suit. Sheriff Baca in Los Angeles has left no doubt where he stands in regard to illegal aliens and looking the other way.

SAN FRANCISCO – If the San Francisco sheriff's plan becomes reality, illegal immigrants arrested for petty crimes won't be held in jail longer than necessary, even if federal immigration agents may want them detained for possible deportation.

Instead, starting Wednesday, deputies will treat those eligible for release just like U.S. citizens: They will be cited to appear in court. City officials, however, aren't so sure about Sheriff Mike Hennessey's plan.

The new policy is his attempt to comply with a city law that prevents police from aiding federal authorities in non-felony crimes and a U.S. law that requires authorities to share fingerprints with immigration agents. "I'm in a position where I'm trying to enforce a local law as well as not violate the federal law and this is the 'in-between,'" he said. "It's a difficult area to tread on because emotions run very high here in California and throughout the country on immigration issues."

Under Hennessey's policy, illegal immigrants who commit misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct, trespassing or shoplifting, will not be held while the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) checks their status through a fingerprinting monitoring program.

Hennessey said the change is meant to coincide with the city's "Sanctuary City" law, which aims to provide refuge for illegal immigrants.

Mayor Ed Lee's office did not receive advance notice of the policy change, said Christine Falvey, Lee's press secretary, in a prepared statement. "We have reached out to federal authorities to determine if this new policy contradicts federal law," Falvey said. "We are awaiting clarification."

The sheriff's new policy comes as the California Assembly on Thursday approved a bill to revise the state's agreement on using the federal Secure Communities program. The measure, which would allow counties to opt out, now moves to the state Senate. San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara county have sought permission from the federal government to opt out of Secure Communities.

Hennessey said his policy is similar to San Miguel and Taos counties in New Mexico. He said San Francisco's policy will protect public safety because immigrants would be more willing to report crimes if they didn't fear arrest and possible deportation.

ICE Spokeswoman Virginia Kice said Hennessey's decision is "unfortunate." In San Francisco County, ICE has taken custody of 731 deportable immigrants since Secure Communities began in June 2010, Kice said. Nearly 40 percent had prior criminal convictions for felonies or multiple misdemeanors, she added.

Angela Chan, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus and a San Francisco Police Commission member, said 68 percent of the people deported under the Secure Communities program in California did not commit serious crimes. "That puts a lot of people at risk," Chan said. "That's why there's such uproar over this program."

Hennessey said he learned that keeping immigrants with ICE detainers behind bars is a courtesy and not mandatory after meeting with Secure Communities director David Venturella late last year. Hennessey's move is drawing some sharp criticism.

"The borders will never be secure as long as places like San Francisco lay out the welcome mat," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal advocacy group that is suing the city over similar immigration issues. "These policies put illegal immigrants above the law," Fitton said.

Fitton cited a 2008 incident in San Francisco where three members of a family were shot to death by a gang member who was an illegal immigrant and had been released from custody as a juvenile. "I can guarantee you people will die by this decision," Fitton said.

Addressing the Assembly before its vote last week, San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano said immigration officials were well aware of the gang member's status. "In fact, that assailant was reported to ICE, and you know what happened? ICE did not act on that complaint. That's what happened. Because they were probably out busting a crossing guard, or arresting a mother on her way to work at a hotel," Ammiano said.

Secure Communities began in 2008 as an initiative to identify and deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes as local authorities share their fingerprints with the Department of Homeland Security. The program operates in over 1,300 jurisdictions in 42 states. ICE has since removed more than 77,000 criminal aliens including more than 28,000 offenders with prior convictions for serious or violent offenses, such as murder, rape and child sexual abuse, Kice said.

And the program will be mandatory for every state and county by 2013, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano recently said. However, several other states including Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington have complained that Secure Communities doesn't just deport convicted felons. Crime victims and witnesses could be swept up, too.

Earlier this month, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced that the state intends to withdraw from the program, calling it "flawed." He said nearly a third of all illegal immigrants deported under the program were not convicted of any crimes.

In Minnesota, legislators are currently debating on whether to become the 43rd state to join Secure Communities.

Kice, the ICE spokeswoman, said 71 percent of the illegal immigrants removed or returned through Secure Communities had criminal convictions. She said 29 percent were non-criminal immigration violators, including those who had been removed earlier and visa violators.

Hennessey said his policy has received mixed public reaction. While he expects some harsh feedback, he doesn't see it stopping. "Believe me, if I've done something wrong, the federal government will sue to stop me. And I'm not hearing anything on that level," Hennessey said. "I don't want to break the law."Tags:Fox News, Sheriff, Mike Hennessey, Mayor Ed Lee, ICE, San Francisco, sanctuary city, amnesty, illegal aliens, Tom Fitton,Judicial WatchTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Illegal Aliens Fed Up With Arizona And Moving To Find 'Respect'

We know some illegal aliens have left Arizona as they have found the State getting rather 'unfriendly' to them. Enjoy this slight of hand post from a new site I was turned on to through being part of The Right Blogfest today, for Memorial Day. Hope you enjoy this on both sides.

Phoenix AZ, May 30, 2011. Thousands of illegal immigrants are showing their outrage with Arizona's controversial SB-1070 law by boycotting the state and moving elsewhere. One example of those who are punishing the state by leaving is illegal immigrant Manuel Renaldo. As he loaded his stolen car with his family of twelve's belongings, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter, "It's a matter of principle, 'homes.' I refuse to be supported by someplace that treats me like a f*---- criminal."

The affects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers who report dwindling beer, spray paint, and ammunition sales. Also hit hard are Arizona hospitals, who have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits by illegal aliens. "We're ecstatic," said one administrator for Banner Health in Phoenix. "At this rate we may see a profit one day."

The boycott/exodus of Arizona by illegals is expected to grow exponentially if similar laws are adopted by other border states.

In related news, DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz thinks that illegal immigration isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. This really makes you wonder why the Democrats didn't repeal our immigration laws when they had the chance during President Obama's first two years in office.

What sort of sick game are they playing? They pass laws, then refuse to enforce them, even saying the crime they created by statute really isn't a crime at all. See for yourself .......

Friday, May 27, 2011

Some may feel we "rubbing it in" by posting two different stories on a related topic today. But as contributing bloggers, we follow different sources. And the story is worth reading from varied viewpoints. In summary, the Obama Administration lost and Arizona won. The Obama administration had no business challenging Arizona other than "monkey business" due to politics. Forget right and wrong, the liberals hope to reap illegals as future democrat voters.

by Fred Lucas, CNS News: In an early test of state immigration reform laws, the Supreme Court ruled on the side of enforcement regarding an Arizona immigration law that allows penalties up to revocation of business licenses for employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens.

The Arizona law in question in this case required employers to use E-Verify, an electronic federal system that is currently voluntary that allows employers to determine the legal status of job applicants and employees. The court ruled 5-3, with Justice Elena Kagan not participating, to reject the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s argument that the Arizona law pre-empted federal control over immigration policy.

This was the first challenge to a state immigration law considered by the high court. The Obama administration opposed the law, but was not directly involved in this case. The Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over another law enacted last year - Senate Bill 1070 - that allowed local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

This ruling bodes well for other enforcement laws with regard to future rulings, said Bob Dane, spokesman for the pro-enforcement Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform.

“This makes clear that federal preemption argument does not preclude meaningful legislation at the state level,” Dane told CNSNews.com. “The Supreme Court said there is no conflict. This is a major smack down to special interests in using the preemption argument.”

“In this case, there was no conflict, it mirrored federal law. We think the same applies to 1070,” Dane added. “It’s a different law and a different decision. But this establishes a legal framework that can be factored into the argument over 1070.”
The Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 says the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ illegal aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. That law also requires that all Arizona employers use E-Verify.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Arizona law is consistent with the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act that also makes it “unlawful for a person or other entity … to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.” “Because we conclude that the state’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted,” Roberts wrote.

IRCA does restrict the ability of states to combat employing illegal aliens, but this law does not run counter to that, Roberts continued. “IRCA expressly preempts some state powers dealing with the employment of unauthorized aliens and it expressly preserves others,” Roberts wrote. “We hold that Arizona’s licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States and therefore is not expressly preempted.”

At its broadest level, the Chamber’s argument is that Congress ‘intended the federal system to be exclusive,’ and that any state system therefore necessarily conflicts with federal law,” Roberts continued. “But Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed Arizona to pursue through licensing laws. Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the states, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority,” he added.

But the ruling does not give states “a blank check to pass any and every immigration law,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center. “Immigration regulation continues to be predominantly a federal concern. State and local laws that do not carefully and assiduously track federal law, or that merely masquerade as 'licensing' laws, would still be preempted,” Conrad said in a statement.

“This ruling does not change the reality that businesses from Main Street to Wall Street are overwhelmed by a cacophony of conflicting state and local immigration legislation. The growing patchwork of state and local immigration laws is a serious obstacle to doing business across state lines,” he added.

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer in the dissenting opinion wrote that allowing the state law to stand imposes the “business death penalty” on employers, who will overreact by discriminating against certain applicants. “Congress did not intend its ‘licensing’ language to create so broad an exemption, for doing so would permit states to eviscerate the federal act’s preemption provision, indeed to subvert the Act itself, by undermining Congress’ efforts (1) to protect lawful workers from national-origin-based discrimination and (2) to protect lawful employers against erroneous prosecution or punishment,” Breyer wrote. He later added, “The state statute seriously threatens the federal Act’s anti-discriminatory objectives by radically skewing the relevant penalties.”Tags:Arizona, Obama Administration, Supreme Court, SCOTUS, e-verify, immigration law, business owners, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

In a stunning and well needed setback to the Obama administration, The SCOTUS ruled the individual states have the right to revoke the licenses of businesses that know they are employing illegal aliens. This very well could be a preview on how the Supreme Court might rule on Arizona's Bill 1070 passed last July, much to the dismay of Obama and those who want open borders and to allow the flood of ILLEGAL aliens to continue unabated into our country.

As important as this victory is we must remain committed to the fight against illegal aliens swamping our country. While Obama continues to embarrass our entire country with his arrogance and stupidity in Europe this week, we here at home who love this country, through the good and bad times must not waiver in supporting legislation like the bill Arizona passed last year.Supremes torpedo Obama's Arizona lawsuit on illegal aliensBy Jim Kouri: In a definite setback for President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that individual states have the right to revoke the licenses of businesses that know they are employing illegal aliens. This case is seen as a preview of another case involving Arizona and illegal aliens expected to go before the nation's highest court.

The justices -- in a 5-3 decision -- upheld Arizona's 2007 law, asserting that the state is well within its rights to enforce such an immigration law under a 1986 federal immigration reform measure that was passed during the Reagan Administration as part of a limited amnesty deal made with Democratic lawmakers.

This ruling -- a disappointment for Obama in a week filled with disappointments -- comes amid a Department of Justice lawsuit against another Arizona law that took effect last July and which makes it a crime to be in the state, which borders Mexico, without proper immigration papers.

"While Obama is backtracking from one miscalculation after another, this ruling may provide other U.S. states the legal means to pass laws to protect their residents from adverse effects of illegal immigration," said former law enforcement officer Mike Snopes.

In today's decision, the court cited the Reagan Administration's federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which preempts state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions other than through licensing and similar laws on firms that employ, recruit, or refer unauthorized aliens for employment.

The law reserves to the states the authority to impose sanctions on employers hiring [illegal] workers, through licensing and similar laws. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: "It uses the federal government's own definition of 'unauthorized alien,' it relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."

Despite President Obama's frequent verbal attacks against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that organization backed the lawsuit filed to invalidate the Arizona law in the courts.

Only eight justices ruled in this case since Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the government made filings against Arizona when she was solicitor general at the Justice Department.

Roberts was joined in the majority by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a swing vote. Left-leaning Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Obama Justice Department has filed a separate suit against Arizona in hopes of blocking the 2010 law, which requires local police who are not federal agents responsible for immigration matters to determine whether people are in the country illegally during arrests or routine traffic stops.

Arizona's laws were slammed by Obama's administration as abusive and divisive.
---------Jim Kouri, CPP, formerly Fifth Vice-President, is currently a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for ConservativeBase.com, and he's a columnist for Examiner.com. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others.Tags:Arizona, Obama Administration, Supreme Court, SCOTUS, e-verify, immigration law, business owners, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Texas Gov. Perry: 'Porous' Border Let In Terrorists

By Hiram Reisne, NewsMax: Texas Gov. Rick Perry says the border with Mexico is not only "porous" but also allows people with terrorist ties to infiltrate the United States. Perry disputes President Barack Obama's statements that the border is safe.

"As a matter of fact, I was very disheartened when the president came into El Paso a couple of weeks ago, had a photo-op out at the city of El Paso and proclaimed that the border was as safe as it's ever been," Perry told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Tuesday. "And that's just nonsense. You ask these men and women who are putting their lives on the line every night, the border patrol agents, the ICE agents, the Texas Department of Public Safety, folks in that helicopter, our SWAT teams that are out there, the local law enforcement.

"All of those individuals know that this border not only is porous, but the people that are coming across this border we have no idea - well, unfortunately, we do know where some of them are from, and they are from countries that have very close ties to al-Qaida, whether it's Yemen or Afghanistan, Pakistan, China. It is an absolute national disgrace," Perry said.

Perry said he has tried to explain to Congress the inherent danger that goes beyond illegal immigrants and drug smuggling, but to no avail.

"We have now for upwards of five or six years been going to Washington, D.C., explaining to Congress, administrations that we have a real and a serious and a present danger that has to be addressed," he said. "Some 12 Democrat sheriffs, people who are not in my political party, went with us to Washington a few years back to share the story about what's happening on that border. And it's only gotten worse."Tags:NewsMax, Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, borders, border security, porous borders, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Monday, May 23, 2011

Taking Illegal Immigartion Seriously - But Obama Obviously Does Not!

Rick Lakehomer: I read this excellent commentary by Victor Davis Hanson and knew straight away that I had to share this here on Patriot's Corner. Illegal immigration is something that I and many other conservatives take very seriously, deadly serious. No, I do not mean that in a lethal context but this is a very serious problem facing the Untied States.

Apparently Obama, the first Muslim POTUS, the Mullah in the White House, does not share this concern that a majority of the American people have over illegal aliens and immigration. While making his latest speech from El Paso, Texas, Obama thought the situation was worthy of mirth and humor. Seems he mentioned something about a moat and alligators. Throwing this back at him, why not complete the border wall or fence, bringing home our troops from "ragistan" and placing them along our borders, both southern and northern. While we are at it how about giving those who defend our borders real rules of engagement? Letting them fire first if threatened and giving our troops the best weapons this country has to take down any and all threats that may challenge them? As you read this there will several errors lies that Obama tried to slide by us. Maybe the partisan crowd from El Paso (made up of illegal aliens perhaps or members of La Raza?) bought into all the mistakes lies Obama mentioned. Myself and many, many of you were not fooled one bit and we know the truth of what the mullah in the White House wants, blanket amnesty, open borders and all those votes these new illegals will bring the first Muslim POTUS.

President Obama gave what was billed as an important speech on immigration last week near the border in El Paso, Texas. Unfortunately, it was one of the most demagogic moments in recent presidential history. Nearly everything Obama said was either factually incorrect or deliberately misleading.

Why, 28 months into the Obama presidency, is there now a sudden push to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform? After all, from 2009 to early 2011, Obama had large Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. Why didn’t he ram through his own immigration bill then, as he did with health care?

The answer, of course, is that about 70 percent of the American people consistently poll against the president’s initiatives on illegal immigration. Obama simply did not want to sign an easily passable bill that would earn him further unpopularity.

But now he has lost the House. A close reelection bid looms. The president is enjoying a sudden bounce in popularity after the killing of Osama bin Laden. He needs to firm up his base of Latino supporters. Presto: Time to blame Republicans for his own past unwillingness to get a bill through his Democratic Congress.

Obama’s demagoguery seemed to work on the crowd in El Paso. His listeners interrupted his speech to answer, “Tear it down,” when he mentioned the border fence. They booed and jeered on cue, “They’re racist,” when he went after Republicans. And they joined Obama, the sudden cheerleader-in-chief, in chanting, “Yes, we can.”

In blaming Republicans, Obama charged that their fears about open borders were groundless, since “The fence is now basically complete.” And to emphasize that claim, he mocked his opponents by saying, “Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll need alligators in the moat.”

That sounds cute. But it is again quite untrue. The fence is most assuredly not “basically complete.” Currently, fewer than 700 miles of the more than 1,900-mile border have any sort of barrier. And less than 5 percent of the border has a secure double-fenced impediment. Even with increased patrols, a recent Government Accountability Office study found that 40 percent of the border is essentially open and unguarded. There are still well over half a million illegal border crossings per year.

In a fit of projection, the president also accused his opponents of politicking the issue for partisan advantage: “We’ve seen a lot of blame and a lot of politics and a lot of ugly rhetoric around immigration.”

That too was a distortion for at least two reasons. First, during the 2010 midterm election, the president himself urged Latinos to “punish” their political “enemies.”

And in the El Paso speech, the president rallied his listeners to go lobby for his proposals: “So I’m asking you to add your voices to this debate. You can sign up to help at whitehouse.gov.” Whipping up crowds to log onto his website seems just like “the usual Washington games” that Obama deplored in the speech.

The president also deliberately confused legal and illegal immigration in lamenting the inability of highly skilled immigrants to obtain work visas and citizenship opportunities. But polls show wide support for legal immigration based on skill sets, not just on proximity to the border or family ties.

What the president did not dare reveal was that to let in professionals and business people from around the world, based on their skills and earning potential, might also mean to curtail the influx of those without education and capital — in other words, to discourage the millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico who don’t speak English or have high-school educations, and who often have little means of support, but have apparent political clout.

Even when the president offered some sensible proposals about illegal aliens paying fines, applying formally for citizenship, and learning English, he was still disingenuous. Obama deliberately floated these proposals to his partisan audience without any details of enforcement, since to do so would likely have turned off the cheering crowd.

So how exactly would Obama coerce some 11 million illegal aliens into paying a fine, returning to the immigration line to apply legally, or learning English? By threat of deportation or incarceration?﻿

Gator in a moat?

The vast majority of the American public is not racist or “playing politics” in worrying about out-of-control illegal immigration. The enforcement of existing federal immigration law has become a joke. Drug violence in Mexico is destabilizing an entire country and spilling over the border. Jobs are scarce here, with unemployment still at 9 percent. Many billions of dollars in remittances to Mexico leave the American Southwest, often from illegal aliens who rely on American social services to make up the difference.

These are serious issues that deserve more from a president than reelection pandering at the border and bad jokes about alligators and moats.Tags:illegal immigration, Barack Obama, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Friday, May 20, 2011

Illegal Means Illegal - Video

Don Smith Show: A video showing how the liberals are using the issue of illegal immigration as a way to capture votes, and further create a divide amongst the American people. While nobody begrudges immigrants coming to America legally, the word illegal still means illegal.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

61 Comments Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

These Normandy-style barriers just ten feet
from the Mexico border were erected
by the National Park Service to block
border patrol vehicles from pursuing illegal aliens

by Audrey Hudson, Human Events: Federal agents must abandon their vehicles and chase drug smugglers and illegal aliens on foot through 40 acres near the Mexican border because of a pond that is home to the endangered desert pupfish.

It’s part of the agreement between the Homeland Security and Interior departments on how best to protect the ecosystem, frustrating lawmakers who say it also prevents agents from conducting routine patrols.

Drug cartels and other criminals could care less about these so-called memos of understanding, or whether they are trampling through a protected species' habitat, Rep. Rob Bishop (R.-Utah) told HUMAN EVENTS. “They would just as soon eat an endangered species as protect it,” Bishop said. The two-inch, bluish pupfish lives in the Quitobaquito Pond and spring channel in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument west of Tucson, Ariz.

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) vehicles have been reported numerous times for driving over a berm that impounds the pond. “Driving on the berm could cause its partial collapse or deterioration,” according to a consultation document between the Border Patrol and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

“If the integrity of the berm is compromised, much or all of the pond could be lost if the berm collapses. Even if the berm does not collapse, driving on it could cause deterioration, resulting in materials spilling into the pond, decreasing its volume, reducing habitat for pupfish, and requiring additional work to repair and reinforce it,” the document says. “These activities would likely result in mortality of pupfish and, at least temporarily, reduce the population." . . .

Border Patrol agents are no longer allowed to drive motorized vehicles into the area unless the life or safety of an officer or cross-border violator (CBV) is in danger.

“USBP may access any portion of Quitobaquito by foot or on horseback at any time necessary to patrol or to pursue and apprehend cross-border violators,” the memo says. There are strict conditions set on use of the horses as well, which must be given a “weed-free-feed” so that its feces do not contaminate the ecosystem of the park.

If the horses are actually kept there, the Border Patrol must “avoid contamination of ground and surface waters by removing animal waste from areas where horses are housed and disposing of it at an appropriate waste facility,” the document says.

Lawmakers are frustrated over the territorial battles between the government agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and protecting the border. They say federal land managers are using environmental regulations to block the Border Patrol from accessing protected portions within 21 million acres on the southern border and 1,000 miles along the Canadian border.

The result is an escalation of violence throughout an area that is now open to criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potential terrorists. Congressional staffers say illegal aliens know exactly where the Border Patrol can and cannot patrol in their vehicles, including 4.3 million acres of Wilderness Areas.

“National parks and forests have become some of the most dangerous and violent areas along the border, where shootings, robberies, rapes, murders, kidnappings and carjackings frequently occur,” according to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources.

In March 2010, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was shot and killed by someone who had illegally entered the country through the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge, the committee said. Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was killed by a hit-and-run driver who crossed the border though the Imperial Sand Dunes in January 2008, and a park ranger was shot and killed in 2002 while pursuing members of a Mexican drug cartel through the Organ Pipe National Monument.

Led by Bishop, key Republicans in the House and Senate are pursuing legislation called the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act that would prohibit the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands that would impede border security. It would also give the Homeland Security secretary immediate access to any public lands managed by the federal government to secure the border, trumping past agreements between the agencies.

“The drug cartels, prostitution rings, kidnappers, and who knows what else, they don't sign these memos of understanding, and they don't care about these arbitrary rules that don't make any sense on the border,” Bishop said.

Even more frustrating, Bishop said, Border Patrol has unlimited access across private property to chase illegal aliens. “They are allowed to do their jobs on private property, and no one blinks an eye, but on public property, there is a brouhaha,” Bishop said.

“When the Border Patrol has to go to federal land managers and beg for permission to do their jobs, that is no longer acceptable,” Bishop said. Rep. Peter T. King (R.-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says the “senseless practice” also leaves the U.S. vulnerable to terrorists.

“I understand why DHS wants to put a good spin on it, and their best face forward, but the bottom line is public land has become the choice entrance for the bad guys,” Bishop said. “So far, the Interior Department’s solutions are signs that say some areas are off-limits to Americans because it’s too dangerous,” he added.

The signs have since been removed, but not before the House committee obtained photos of one posted by the Bureau of Land Management warning visitors to avoid certain areas. “Danger—public warning, travel not recommended,” one sign reads. “Active drug and human smuggling area. Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.” . . . [Full Story]Tags:borders, border security, pupfish, border agents, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Paradoxical Thought For Today

"Fathom the odd hypocrisythat the government wants every citizento prove that they are insured,but people don't have to prove that they are citizens."

Ben Stein------------- The above was submitted by one of our readers. We have no direct evidence other than it is posted on over 12,000 sites & blogs (see below) that Ben Stein made this statement, but it reads like a "Steinism." Good old "Common Sense" could have been credited for the quote but it is rumored that the present government put "Common Sense" on their "enemies list."

Monday, May 16, 2011

Illegal Alien Indoctrination

The Trojan Pinata, will it fool the voters?

Credits: Michael Ramirez

By Kenneth Wallis, Little Rock Immigration Examiner:The story below is about Arizona, but indoctrination of people into accepting illegal immigration is being done across the nation. I had just recently attended a rigged public discussion about illegal immigration from the leftist group Just Communities in Little Rock a few days ago.I had heard about how 3rd graders in Tuscon were being indoctrinated into the Aztlan / reconquesta /illegal alien agenda from Glenn Beck's radio broadcast on 102.9 KARN and how someone had read from a textbook to a schoolboard meeting. I was going to upload the youtube video of this incident when I saw that it had been removed due to copyright claim by a leftist group called "The Three Sonorans."

Fortunately, the conservative activist at freerepublic.com and another website called Ironic Surrealism, have another video, probably videotaped off of youtube. That video is here.

If you want to see the full video of the whole meeting, you have to go the pro-socialist Three Sonorans website

Just in case that video is taken down, here is the text of what was read at the meeting:
“An Epic Poem”
I shed tears of sorrow, I sow seeds of hate The force of tyranny of men who rule by farce and hypocrisy, In a country that has wiped out all my history, stifled all my pride.

In a country that has placed weight of my indignity upon my age old burdened back. Inferiority is the new load.

My land is lost and stolen, My culture has been raped. Poverty and city-living under the colonial system of the Anglo has castrated our people’s culture. One note, especially to those young chicanos, hard drugs and the drug culture is the invention of the gringo because he has no culture. We have to destroy capitalism and we’ve got to have 5/6 of the world to destroy capitalism in order to equal all peoples lives.

The Declaration of Independence states that we the people have the right to revolution, the right to overthrow a government that has committed abuses and seeks complete control over the people. This is in order to clean out the corrupted, rotten officials that developed out of any type of capitalistic systems. Any country that is based on capitalism is based on greed.

Other sections of the textbook as read:
“Today I have a message for all the people of Aztlan to the children, the students, the workers, to the masses of our people, and to the bloodsuckers, the parasites, the vampires who are the capitalists of the world: The schools are tools of the power structure that blind and sentence our youth to a life of confusion, and hypocrisy, one that preaches assimilation and practices institutional racism.

The Revolution
The revolution stands in life’s dark shadows waiting patiently for her (unintelligible) troops. The revolution sees Mexicans turning into gringos her (unintelligible) like washed up gringos …[sellout] and kiss the mans ass."Tags:illegal aliens, indoctrination, students, To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Sunday, May 15, 2011

No Voting Rights For Illegal Aliens - Ever!

For Dems, It's All About A Permanent Electoral Majority - Not Human Dignity

by Ralph Peters, Family Security Matters: No one who broke our laws to enter this country should ever decide who becomes our president, a member of Congress, a governor or mayor, or a member of the local school board. This is the non-negotiable “die line” those who love our country must defend: We cannot permit a huge criminal voting block to determine our future.

And every person who entered this country without our government’s formal permission is a criminal. Period.

Democratic Party operatives embed their public arguments for amnesty for eleven-million illegals in terms of human dignity and decency (they never mention votes). The examples they cite in their speeches and sleek commercials always feature hardworking moms with adorable kids who excel at school and, when not doing community service, dream of becoming physicians and curing cancer. Our laws are never mentioned. Nor is the multitude of illegal immigrant criminals who continue to violate those laws after breaking into our national home.

Eric Balderas, last year’s
poster boy for the DREAM Act.

The reality? A few years back—before things worsened--40% of all federal convicts were Latinos, and 72% of those were not U.S. citizens. That tells us two things: First, native-born Hispanics are, on average, better citizens than a number of other ethnic groups. Second, a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants commit felonies. Contrary to Democratic Party bigotry, not all Hispanics are alike.

Those “cute-as-a-puppy” commercials and TV-news featurettes never get around to advertising the murderers, rapists and drug thugs covered in gang tattoos who haunt our cities and ever more small towns, or the fact that at least half of illegal-immigrant households are on at least one welfare-system program at taxpayer expense, or that the cost just to our education system of illegal immigration is between forty and fifty billion dollars per year. (Want to save a few billion a year? Defend our borders.)

Member of M-13 gang.

Why does the Democratic Party relentlessly inflict this “illegals-are-just-like-you-only-nicer-and-better” propaganda on us? Is it because the party that supported slavery, then relied on the Ku Klux Klan for a full century, then re-enslaved African-Americans on its electoral plantations where their children receive inferior educations (thanks to the overseers in the teachers’ unions) and are discouraged from pursuing careers that might free them finally saw the light and decided to fight for a better future for minorities? Hell, no. Democratic Party support for amnesty for illegals comes down to one word: “Votes.”

So let’s call the Dems out. We’re not going to get an ideal solution to the illegal-immigrant problem. And we’re not going to line up eleven-million criminal invaders (that’s what illegals are, folks) and march them back across the Rio Grande. It just isn’t going to happen. But we can protect our system of government and our social values by insisting that, after ridding ourselves of every illegal with a criminal record beyond the initial border violation, a history of joblessness, or a gang tattoo (checking for them would be no more intrusive than what you and I endure at the airport), we create a new category of provisional residency leading—if the individual’s police record stays clean and he or she stays off dependency programs—to permanent residency without voting rights.

Of course, the Dems will howl that there has been no greater injustice in all of human history and that, in President Obama’s favorite phrase, “That’s not who we are!” (speak for yourself, Mr. President). But let’s apply common sense: How many illegals broke into this country because they hoped one day to participate in our national, state or local elections? Apart from the haters in La Raza, wouldn’t illegals regard residency without voting rights as a damned good deal? If they could choose that option, wouldn’t they jump at it? With all of the benefits of being Americans, except the right to distort our system of government?

They won’t be offered that option, though. Not if this administration has anything to say about it. Democratic Party power brokers wouldn’t accept such a reasonable compromise in a thousand years. Because the Dems don’t give a damn about little Luisa and her dreams of getting a Ph.D. in astrophysics, becoming an astronaut, writing symphonies, and dressing the sores of lepers in her spare time. They only care about the votes they hope to buy with total amnesty.>

The fundamental purpose of the Democratic Party’s insistence on full citizenship for the criminals from abroad who live among us is the hope of creating a permanent Democratic majority in key states and nationally. The blunt truth that no Republican official will mouth is that, after creating their squalid electoral plantations—every one a domain of hopelessness and reliable Democratic majorities—the Dems now want to create barrio latifundias with electoral peons who will learn nothing in our schools (certainly not effective English-language skills) except that they owe their allegiance to the Democratic Party—and that race-hatred is America’s primary heritage.

From its long embrace of Communism to its current worship of invasive government, the now-dominant left wing of the Democratic Party has always been uneasy with our republic and the constitutional manner in which we allocate power through elections. The Dems’ attitude really can be summed up as “The masses are asses.” Elites know best, and those of us who didn’t go to top universities are better off as serfs controlled by a directorate of the intelligentsia. And, of course, no native-born American could possibly be as deserving as a criminal alien newly arrived from the underdeveloped world.

We’re reminded, again and again, that we’re a country of immigrants. Absolutely true. And we need continued immigration. But it must be legal. We have every right to decide who does and does not get to enter and remain in our country. And our consular officers—often destructively leftist in their orientation—need new regulations that discourage scamming the system and encourage the allocation of green cards to the young, healthy and educated. Wouldn’t hurt a bit, if, for a ten-year period, the basic requirement for a green card was a four-year university degree plus the proven ability to speak and write fluent English (the ability would have to be double-checked at ports of entry, since too many of our consular officers have political agendas). Our current system is obsessed with making our society more “balanced,” meaning multicultural and dumbed-down. The left hates the America that was, despises the America that is, and is determined to design the America that will be. And it won’t be a democracy whose leaders are chosen by conscientious, literate citizens.

Really, let’s call the Dems out. If they truly care about giving cuddly illegals the opportunity to unfold their supposedly enormous gifts, live better lives, and rescue our economy, fine: Let’s make a deal (but booting out all criminals is non-negotiable, too). The illegals who measure up—who have a consistent record of employment, no government-aid claims and no police records--get to stay, with every right and opportunity except the vote. And their children who are born on our soil after they receive permanent residency will enjoy full voting rights when they come of age, just like others born legally on our soil. It’s the greatest deal on earth. All the Dems have to do is to prove their humanity and compromise on a single issue.

Think they will?

The first response will be that it’s un-American to have “second-class citizens.” Fine. Don’t call them “citizens.” Call them “residents.” We already have various classes of residency. We can, through legislation, create another. And, frankly, I’m not interested in the party of slavery, then and now, telling me what’s un-American.

As for Hispanics, the Dems are virulently racist, lumping them all together as a group and failing to recognize their individuality and patriotism. Millions of native-born Hispanics are thorough patriots who do not welcome the crime, fecklessness and degradation that illegal immigrants bring to their communities. But to the Democratic Party’s propagandists, all olive-skinned, tan, brown or white folks with a last name such as Gutierrez or Sanchez are oppressed victims who have no stake in our brutal, imperialist society. And the Dems would love to do to Hispanics what they’ve done to African-Americans: Destroy their strong family values, addict them to government programs, discourage them from pursuing good educations and liberating careers—then herd them to polling stations to vote for Democrats anointed by party commissars.

Ultimately, the Dems are going to lose. Our Hispanic fellow citizens just aren’t going to let themselves be dragged backward. And the Dems sense it. So they’re chasing a block of eleven-million uneducated criminals whose poor English-language skills exclude them from full participation in the work-force or our society. That’s the future of the Democratic Party, as the likes of Senator Harry Reid or Representative Nancy Pelosi see it.

To prevent that future from becoming a reality we need to concentrate fiercely on a single battle cry: “No voting right for illegal aliens—ever!”Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a former enlisted man, a journalist and a bestselling author. He has experience in seventy countries on six continents. His latest books are “The Officers’ Club,” a novel of the post-Vietnam military, and “Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization.” Ralph Peters worked briefly with the Pakistani military and intelligence leadership during in the mid-1990s. His military report on his on-the-ground experience warned of growing Islamization within the Pakistani forces. Nobody in Washington cared.Tags:voting rights, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Victory in Georgia and Indiana!

Chris Chmielenski, NumbersUSA: While the President was in El Paso calling for a plan that would allow 7 million illegal aliens to keep their jobs, the governors of Georgia and Indiana signed two new laws that will make it much more difficult f or the illegal workers in those states to keep their jobs.Gov. Nathan Deal, who is a former member of the NumbersUSA 5-for-5 Club, signed HB87 on Friday, completing a long and lengthy debate over immigration enforcement in the Peach State.Most provisions of the new bill take effect on July 1, but the mandatory E-Verify requirements for employers with more than 10 employees will be phased in over the next two years.

The other provisions of the bill are similar to those passed last year in Arizona's SB1070. Effective July 1, police officers are empowered to arrest and jail illegal aliens. (Arizona's law required the actions.) The bill also has heavy penalties for anyone who knowingly harbors or transports illegal aliens and requires individuals applying for state welfare benefits to prove that they are legally present.

Also this week, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed Indiana's immigration enforcement bill into law. The new law requires state contractors to use E-Verify and requires private businesses to use E-Verify if they want to deduct employee expenses from their state income taxes.

Progress was also made in Texas this week after the state's House of Representatives passed a bill forbidding the establishment of sanctuary cities. The bill moves to the Senate for its consideration.
Thanks to all of our activists in these three states that helped move this legislation!Tags:sanctuary cities, E-Verify, immigration enforcement, illegal workers, Gov. Nathan Deal, Georgia, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana, Texas State House, Gov. Rick PerryTexas, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Friday, May 13, 2011

Majority Say U.S.-Mexico Not Secure

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama on Tuesday encouraged Congress to move forward on immigration reform, saying his administration has “strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible.” But most voters don’t share the president’s view.
Likely Voters:
30% think the U.S. border with Mexico is even somewhat secure
64% disagree and say it is not secure.
Included in the above numbers:
3% who say the U.S.-Mexico border is Very Secure
29% who believe it’s Not At All Secure.
-----------
51% of Democrats say the border is secure
86% of Republicans say it is not secure
65% of Independents say it is not secure

Most voters say securing the border is a higher priority than addressing the status of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration.

59% of voters favor a cutoff of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities
53% of voters say the U.S. military should be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration -- which is down 145 from a year ago.
78% of voters say they have followed news reports about the issue of illegal immigration at least somewhat closely
41% who have followed Very Closely
61% of American Adults say if immigration laws were enforced, there would be less poverty here. . . . [Full Report]Tags:Rasmussen Reports, border security, sanctuary cities, federal funds, illegal aliens, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Here's Your Sign: Illegal Means Illegal

Remember Bill Engvall's routine: Here's Your Sign!
Below is the "Here's Your Sign" for all Illegals and US Gov't agencies.. It was paid for by the taxpayers and is clear and definitive. The trouble is the recent administrations have been unwilling to do the two actions identified: ARREST and PROSECUTE!

Majority Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sactuary Cities

Rasmussen Reports: New legislation being considered by the House would stop all federal funding for cities that give sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and most voters like the idea. But very few believe Congress is likely to pass such a measure.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a cutoff of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities. Just 28% are opposed and 13% are not sure.

Regardless of Congressional action, 58% of voters think the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Twenty-six percent (26%) are opposed to having the Justice Department prosecute sanctuary cities and 16% are not sure.

Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration, but voters are now almost evenly divided over whether it's better to let the federal government or individual states enforce immigration laws. . . . [Full Report]Tags:Rasmussen Reports, sanctuary cities, federal funds, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Obama Mocks Border Enforcement: 'They'll Need A Moat' With Alligators

StandwithArizona Video" Just disgraceful. Obama says Republicans will "never be satisfied" by the amount of border protection he has ordered, even as the border is more dangerous than ever. "Maybe they'll need a moat. Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat. They'll never be satisfied." Tell that to the widow of Robert Krentz, Mr. President. Or the family of slain agent Brian Terry, murdered by the very guns you gave to the cartels and now are covering up. " I understand. That's politics", said Obama. But it is HIS politics. The cynical politics of race and division. It's un-American. 2012 cannot come soon enough.Tags:President Obama, mocking, mocks, arrogant, El Paso, Texas, border speech, border security, illegals, illegal aliens, Janet Napolitano, border patrol, border enforcement, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Obama heads to Texas to push immigration overhaul

When President Obama heads to Texas with the intent to address Illegal immigration, and possibly his intent amnesty, we rely on a Texan to bring us the story form the Lone Star state. Below, Fred Witzell, aka TexasFred sums up the situation with his usual straight forwarded bulldog tenacity. Thanks Fred!Obama heads to Texas to push immigration overhaul

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is making his first trip as president to the U.S.-Mexico border, using the setting to sharpen his call for a remake of the nation’s immigration laws and try to cast the GOP as the obstacle standing in its way.

The president’s speech in El Paso, Texas, on Tuesday, and his visit to a border crossing there, are the latest high-profile immigration events by Obama, who has also hosted meetings at the White House recently with Latino lawmakers, movie stars and others.

It all comes despite an unfavorable climate on Capitol Hill, where Republicans who control the House have shown no interest in legislation that offers a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

That’s led to criticism that Obama’s efforts are little more than politics in pursuit of the ever-growing Hispanic electorate ahead of the 2012 election. White House officials dispute that. They acknowledge the difficulties in getting a bill but say it’s likelier to happen if the president creates public support for immigration legislation, leading to pressure on Republican lawmakers.

TexasFred: I see no point in beating around the bush here, let’s just get right to the heart of the matter, this trip by Obama has little to do with immigration, it has everything to do with another attempt at an amnesty bill for ILLEGALS and pandering to the LEGAL families of those individuals that choose to circumvent the laws of this nation.

It appears that any time Americans try to stand up for the LAWS of this nation, and clamor for enforcement of IMMIGRATION laws, and the removal of those that violate those laws, we hear cries of BIGOT and RACIST.

I have asked this question before and I have yet to have anyone address me with an answer that wasn’t a libber screed on immigration, so, in the interest of *fair and balanced* I am going to ask one more time: When did ILLEGAL become a RACE?

When did it become RACIST to enforce the laws of the United States of America?

There is no ONE particular RACE of people being targeted, the term ILLEGAL applies to all persons, regardless of race or nationality, that are in THIS nation illegally.Texas House passes ‘sanctuary cities’ bill

AUSTIN - After hours of emotional debate, the Republican-led Texas House voted 100-47 on Monday night to give preliminary approval to legislation that would ban so-called sanctuary cities that critics contend are havens for illegal immigrants.

Latino lawmakers charged that the bill – one of Gov. Rick Perry’s top priorities – would lead to racial profiling and force millions of Texas Hispanics to “live in fear.”

Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who represents a heavily Hispanic district, called the bill “one of the most overtly racist pieces of legislation I’ve seen.”

Supporters tout the bill by Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, as a powerful weapon against illegal immigration. Solomons described the measure as “a good bill.”

I have a good friend in Austin, he’s a Conservative lawmaker and we converse regularly. After the passing of the Texas House Bill 12 told me, “Yep…were all racists. Didn’t know I was ‘one’ till I got to Austin.”

I know that feeling. I had NO idea what a racist and bigot I was until I began blogging. I was under the impression I was a staunch supporter of the American legal system, turns out that by supporting that system I am now a *vile racist* because of the views I have on border security and how to enforce that security.

If you want to see how Texans view this *sanctuary city* thing, see the graph below, it is linked to it’s source.

From the original story:

“We already know from the first two years, the last Congress, that there was political opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, including from some places where there used to be political support,” said presidential spokesman Jay Carney. “We are endeavoring to change that dynamic by rallying public support, by raising public awareness about the need for comprehensive immigration reform.”

The Obama Regime, and the Bush debacle that preceded it, yes I do look at it as a debacle, for a number of reasons, but in this particular instance because Bush DID try to push an amnesty bill off on the American people, they have (Bush and Obama), in these efforts, failed to realize, Americans do NOT want these immigration reforms rammed down our throats, we don’t want, and won’t stand for these back-door attempts at amnesty, and bloggers like me will continue to point out the efforts of Obama and Company every time they try, and call them for exactly what they are, PANDERING politicos, looking for votes in order to sustain the most destructive political machine in the history of this nation!

If you believe America has immigration laws that are too strict, just do a Google search and look up the immigration laws of Mexico. Maybe we need to adopt their laws.Tags:TexasFred, President Obama, Texas, immigration overhaul, amnesty, illegal aliens, Mexico, Sanctuary Cities, Secure our BordersTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Terrorist Group Setting Up Operations Near Border

This is not new and has been going on for quite some time, in fact for years. This is just one more reason we must seal our borders and have armed troops with REAL ROE guarding our borders, both south and north.

Hezbollah is just marking time and quietly going about business. It is just a matter of time before they strike inside the United States. Don't look for Mexico to do anything. The Mexican government is about as corrupt as they come and is a house built on sinking sand.

From 10News.com"Terrorist Group Setting Up Operations Near Border - Hezbollah Considered To Be More Advanced Than Al-Qaida"

SAN DIEGO -- A terrorist organization whose home base is in the Middle East has established another home base across the border in Mexico. "They are recognized by many experts as the 'A' team of Muslim terrorist organizations," a former U.S. intelligence agent told 10News.

The former agent, referring to Shi'a Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah, added, "They certainly have had successes in big-ticket bombings." Some of the group's bombings include the U.S. embassy in Beirut and Israeli embassy in Argentina.

However, the group is now active much closer to San Diego. "We are looking at 15 or 20 years that Hezbollah has been setting up shop in Mexico," the agent told 10News.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. policy has focused on al-Qaida and its offshoots. "They are more shooters than thinkers … it's a lot of muscles, courage, desire but not a lot of training," the agent said, referring to al-Qaida

Hezbollah, he said, is far more advanced. "Their operators are far more skilled … they are the equals of Russians, Chinese or Cubans," he said. "I consider Hezbollah much more dangerous in that sense because of strategic thinking; they think more long-term." Hezbolah has operated in South America for decades and then Central America, along with their sometime rival, sometime ally Hamas.

Now, the group is blending into Shi'a Muslim communities in Mexico, including Tijuana. Other pockets along the U.S.-Mexico border region remain largely unidentified as U.S. intelligence agencies are focused on the drug trade. "They have had clandestine training in how to live in foreign hostile territories," the agent said.

The agent, who has spent years deep undercover in Mexico, said Hezbollah is partnering with drug organizations, but which ones is not clear at this time.

He told 10News, the group receives cartel cash and protection in exchange for Hezbollah expertise. "From money laundering to firearms training and explosives training," the agent said.

For example, he tracked, along with Mexican intelligence, two Hezbollah operatives in safe houses in Tijuana and Durango. "I confirmed the participation of cartel members as well as other Hezbollah individuals living and operating out of there," he said.

Tunnels the cartels have built that cross from Mexico into the U.S. have grown increasingly sophisticated. It is a learned skill, the agent said points to Hezbollah's involvement. "Where are the knowledgeable tunnel builders? Certainly in the Middle East," he said.

Why have Americans not heard more about Hezbollah's activities happening so close to the border? "If they really wanted to start blowing stuff up, they could do it," the agent said.

According to the agent, the organization sees the U.S. as their "cash cow," with illegal drug and immigration operations. Many senior Hezbollah leaders are wealthy businessmen, the agent said. "The money they are sending back to Lebanon is too important right now to jeopardize those operations," he said.

Thursday, May 05, 2011

ACLU files suit against Utah immigration law for La Raza and others...

How tragic and disgusting but then what do you expect from the ACLU. La Raza is a notorious organization that backs the re-taking of the Southwestern United States and California. There is nothing peaceful about this group and many of the others that the ACLU is representing as part of this suit against the Utah immigration law.

La Raza has been part of many violent protests against sensible immigration laws and is bed with many of the unions like the SEIU and AFSCME.

By Luis F. Perez: The America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit in Utah to try to stop the state’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law. The ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center filed the complaint on behalf of several individuals and organizations, including the Utah Coalition of La Raza and the Latin American Chamber of Commerce, the Deseret News reported Wednesday.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to seek an injunction against the law this week in U.S. District Court to stop the law from being enforced, said Karen McCreary, executive director of the state ACLU. The ACLU decided to try to stop the law now because it’s scheduled to start being enforced May 15.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice Tuesday also signaled that it might challenge the Utah law. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a congressional committee that, if Utah doesn’t make some adjustments, the justice department probably would have to step in, the newspaper reported.

Rep. Chris Herrod, a Provo Republican and staunch supporter of the immigration law, criticized the ACLU lawsuit as "politically motivated" and said it lacks merit.

Holder Eyes Utah Guest-Worker Law

The law Utah passed is not a good law, not at all. It gives illegal aliens too many loopholes and 'rights' that none of them deserve. They are here illegally and do not deserve any rights, any health care or any breaks on tuition for higher education. In fact, they do not deserve to be able to be enrolled in our public schools. The only 'right' they should have is a one way trip back to Mexico with every member of their family. There are too many LEGAL American citizens who are barely hanging on who need the help we are throwing away on 'helping' illegal aliens.

A year after suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told Congress on Tuesday that his department is prepared to sue Utah for going the other way and creating its own guest-worker program - though he is giving the state some time to change its law.

“That’s a law that doesn’t go into effect until 2013,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee. “We will look at the law, and if it is not changed to our satisfaction by 2013, we will take all the necessary steps.”

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert earlier this year signed a package of immigration bills, including one to enhance enforcement, similar to but not as far-reaching as Arizona’s law, and another that tries to create a guest-worker program and protect illegal immigrants from arrest.

The enforcement law is already being challenged in court by civil rights groups, and Mr. Holder said if the guest-worker law doesn’t change he will challenge it, too, for infringing on the federal government’s right to control immigration policy.

Mr. Herbert’s office didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, but Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told The Washington Times that he has had several meetings with Justice Department officials to talk about ways to bridge the gap between Utah’s law and Mr. Holder’s stance.

“I am pleased to see he did say we had two years,” Mr. Shurtleff said. “We’re working with them. I feel like they’re open to ongoing discussions.”

Utah’s move this year to pass a state-level guest-worker program shook the immigration debate, since it came from a conservative-leaning state where immigration enforcement is popular and where politicians regularly label federal guest-worker plans as “amnesty.”

Under the plan, illegal immigrants living in Utah could apply, pay a fine and be issued a work permit.

Immigration-rights advocates said it marked a reversal from the trend of enforcement-only policies pioneered by Arizona.

The guest-worker program poses a test for Mr. Obama and his administration, which quickly moved to block Arizona’s enforcement effort, but has yet to take action on Utah’s law, which more closely matches his own proposals on how to address immigration. . . . Story ContinuesTags:Eric Holde4r, US Attorney General, Utah, Gov. Gary R. Herbert, guest worker law, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

By Penny Starr, CNSNews – Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., told a House subcommittee today that in one U.S. attorney's district in Texas illegal aliens are allowed to be caught crossing the border 7 times before they are charged with a misdeamanor and 14 times before they are charged with a felony.

Dever further saidthe policies call for considering federal human smuggling charges only if at least 6 illegal aliens are being transported.

“There are policies in place that establish thresholds for quantities of drugs and numbers of illegal aliens before consideration for prosecution can be entertained,” Dever said in his written testimony before the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. “In at least one Federal District in Texas, if you are caught smuggling less than 750 kilos (1,653 pounds) of marijuana, you will not be subjected to prosecution.”

“If you are caught smuggling fewer than 6 illegal aliens, you will not be subject to prosecution,” Dever said. “And if you are a lone illegal border crosser, you get at least seven chances before you are even charged with a misdemeanor. And after that, you get seven more chances before you are eligible for prosecution of a second offense felony,” Dever said.

The sheriff also said that even with added resources on the border, effective control can be hampered by “ideology.”

“Advances in technology, increases in the number of personnel, and equipment enhancements are limited in their effectiveness by strategic and tactical application -- all of which is driven by ideology and policy,” Dever said.
“While law enforcement on our side of the border are constrained in many ways, the bad guys know no such boundaries and learn very quickly from our foibles,” he said.
The "federal district" in Texas referenced by Dever is one of four in that state, each of which holds a U.S. attorney's office: one for each district -- Texas Southern District, headed by U.S. Attorney Jose Angel Moreno; Texas Western, headed by John E. Murphy; Texas North, James T. Jacks; and Texas Eastern, John Malcolm Bales.

Nationwide, there are 94 U.S. attorney's offices. Five of those federal districts are on the border with Mexico.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
Photo by Penny Starr

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) asked another witness at the hearing, Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, what the “official policy is of the United States of America” is when it comes to drug thresholds in Texas. “My understanding is now in the southern district of Texas, if you catch somebody with 220 pounds or less, let’s say marijuana, if the local folks don’t take those cases, then that person is going to be released, is that correct?” Cuellar said.

“I’m not specifically aware of Laredo’s threshold scenario with the U.S. attorney’s office, but I can assure you what we do there and what we expect inspectors to do across the nation is to refer these cases,” Vitiello said, adding that the cases are referred to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Cuellar pressed Vitiello again to answer his question. “My question is, what is the policy of the United States of America when it comes to somebody being caught with drugs at a checkpoint,” Cuellar said. Vitiello still did not directly answer the question but told Cuellar, “What we do is call the DEA.”Tags:Penny Starr, CNS News, Arizona, Sheriff, testifies, US Congress, illegals crossing borders, border security, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!